[Bell Historians] Re: Stanton St John

[Andrew Higson]

I think he is missing CJP!
 
Andrew 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Offen
Sent: 13 March 2007 10:18
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Bell Historians] Re: Stanton St John



--- In bellhistorians@ <mailto:bellhistorians%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com, "John Cater" <John at ...> wrote:
>
> From: "Richard Offen"
> > So what does this all set out to achieve? Justification for a 
quick
> > grab and then on to the next 'unringable' on the list of 'towers 
needed
> > to finish the county'?
> 
> So what does your email set out to achieve? Attempting to justify a 
quick 
> sideswipe, without knowing the full facts, and then on to the 
next 'easy 
> target' on the list of 'ringers I disapprove of'?
> 
> John Cater
>

My apologies if I have offended. 

I confess old age has made me rather cynical about the justification in 
getting many of these towers going again, when they are likely to have 
only a limited amount of use. That having been said, there are always 
those towers where such work has galvanized a parish into action to 
carry out a full resotration.

I still however wonder why we wish to get more and more bells ringable 
when we are hard pushed to man the ones we've already go?

Again, apologies if the last posting was ill considered and offensive.

Richard



 
           
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20070313/7c964a56/attachment.html>